US Elections 2012 Part II: The Conventions, Debates and Election results

User Name

Remember Me?

Password

Notices

Trouble logging in?If you can't remember your password or are having trouble logging in, you will have to reset your password. If you have trouble resetting your password (for example, if you lost access to the original email address), please do not start posting with a new account, as this is against the forum rules. If you create a temporary account, please contact us right away via Forum Support, and send us any information you can about your original account, such as the account name and any email address that may have been associated with it.

That or shifting the NASA budget into the military that some of the commenters keep talking about in their endless back and forth about who started what and who is worse for the nations than the other.

What it is telling you and me is that these people are making so little money that they can barely sustain themselves with it, let alone pay a tax on that income. These people are still paying some form of taxes in the states/city/town they live in the ways of sales tax, tolls, etc. At the end of the day, the money they are earning still isn't enough to cover the total cost of food and shelter (the two most basic need of any human being) without some kind of assistance.....

show me people who truly can't sustain themselves and I'll show you someone who either doesn't know all the benefits available to them or is down and out on drugs & alcohol.

not only do many of those who don't earn enough to pay taxes get extra benefits... they get back more than they paid in through the EITC!

Quote:

That's a bit of a naive outlook considering almost every state in the United States has been struggling for the last decade or so to raise money to balance their budgets. That 3% of the rich buying those bonds because it helps them with their deduction to reduce the taxable income, not because they want to help the states and cities from the goodness of their heart.....

tax-free bonds aren't "deductions". purchasing them doesn't reduce one's taxable income like deductions do.
they're generally used by asset rich and income poor retired people who want an income stream without taxation. it's a win-win for them and the bond issuers

Quote:

Even then, if you go state by state, bond buying isn't creating that much of dent to effect a state's projected budget. These states still need to raise money via tolls, tickets/infractions, sales tax, property tax, state tax, town tax, city tax, etc. etc. to raise that money and they are still broke.

as the name implies, munis are mostly used by municipalities or other state-sanctioned entities. it provides a means of raising large sums of money at once... even larger than could be raised by a tax initiative. indeed, new taxes are often levied to pay them off over time. it's how municipalities finance projects they can't pay for now.

I don't care about Romney's secret admissions. An 18-month campaign offers a downright luxurious amount of time to say dumb things. But I do care about Romney's public statements and his public stances. In February, Romney told a reporter he was "not concerned about the very poor" because they have a safety net. In August, he backed a budget that slashes the projected growth of that safety net. If only neglecting the plight of low-income families were the sort of thing Romney tried to keep a secret.

this is classic liberal Newspeak.

cutting the rate of growth of entitlements = "cuts."

Quote:

Come election time, a lot of these non-paying leeches will still be voting Republicans if we go by the trend of the last three decades or so........

nope.jpg

the non-paying leeches are those getting a free ride on everyone else's dime... the vast majority will vote d-crats

I doubt than you could remove all thoses loopholes, given their numbers. Plus a few of them aren't that hated, or even positive, like the deduction for donation to charity.

I have seen data how the distribution of the money in many charities is (the relative distribution of actual charity work and administrative work that is paid for with donations). Lets just say, that in most cases the government wasn't a bad alternative.

Besides, I don't really like the charity instrument for one specific reason. It was synaesthetic who once wrote that she feels a lot more uncomfortable to receive aid from church based charities, because they are biased towards her. So, if everyone was donating for charity (in this case some church) - the maximum, tax deductible amount of income - than this would be equivalent to the government out sourcing subsidies for the poor to churches/religous organizations. I would prefer an unbiased support if I was poor.

I have seen data how the distribution of the money in many charities is (the relative distribution of actual charity work and administrative work that is paid for with donations). Lets just say, that in most cases the government wasn't a bad alternative.

Besides, I don't really like the charity instrument for one specific reason. It was synaesthetic who once wrote that she feels a lot more uncomfortable to receive aid from church based charities, because they are biased towards her. So, if everyone was donating for charity (in this case some church) - the maximum, tax deductible amount of income - than this would be equivalent to the government out sourcing subsidies for the poor to churches/religous organizations. I would prefer an unbiased support if I was poor.

There's an old "running gag" that the homeless know too well --- if you want help ya gotta listen to their sermons and preaching (be it Catholic, Salvation Army, whatever). And if you're clearly someone that doesn't fit into their little ideology it can be unpleasant.

the non-paying leeches are those getting a free ride on everyone else's dime... the vast majority will vote d-crats

You should check your fact before saying such thing: thre five states where there's the more of thoses than don't pay taxe are red state.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jinto

I have seen data how the distribution of the money in many charities is (the relative distribution of actual charity work and administrative work that is paid for with donations). Lets just say, that in most cases the government wasn't a bad alternative.

Besides, I don't really like the charity instrument for one specific reason. It was synaesthetic who once wrote that she feels a lot more uncomfortable to receive aid from church based charities, because they are biased towards her. So, if everyone was donating for charity (in this case some church) - the maximum, tax deductible amount of income - than this would be equivalent to the government out sourcing subsidies for the poor to churches/religous organizations. I would prefer an unbiased support if I was poor.

I have to agree with you about the charity to religious organisation. It such than giveing to them count the same as giving to the Red Cross.

Besides, I don't really like the charity instrument for one specific reason. It was synaesthetic who once wrote that she feels a lot more uncomfortable to receive aid from church based charities, because they are biased towards her. So, if everyone was donating for charity (in this case some church) - the maximum, tax deductible amount of income - than this would be equivalent to the government out sourcing subsidies for the poor to churches/religous organizations. I would prefer an unbiased support if I was poor.

Simple solution: Don't class churches(and other religious organisations) as charitable organisations. I know of several countries that do this.

There are plenty of great secular charities that come to mind to (for instance, Doctors/Engineers without borders).

Simple solution: Don't class churches(and other religious organisations) as charitable organisations. I know of several countries that do this.

There are plenty of great secular charities that come to mind to (for instance, Doctors/Engineers without borders).

There's actually a fairly loud but utterly ignored movement for just that. The religious institutions (evangelical, catholic, etc) are clearly political in the US these days, that should revoke their tax-exempt status.

There's actually a fairly loud but utterly ignored movement for just that. The religious institutions (evangelical, catholic, etc) are clearly political in the US these days, that should revoke their tax-exempt status.

That's the kind of stuff than would give Santorum nightmare, or at least make him want to puke and he wouldn't be the only politicians ( GOP and Democrate) than would be at least displeased by this.

Interesting that I've heard another opinion on the state of American politics. That everything has shifted to the left (more liberal) and the right is vanishing. This seems to be mostly based on the ideas of more and more handouts being voted into existance over the last several decades.

Add to this the impression (for California) that the Democratic Party is the problem the state has, but the Repulican Party gets blamed for everything even though they are not, nor have they been in control on the State Government in a very long time (aside from a Governor here and there, still no legislative control). Yet the states still votes Democrat every time.

What I keep getting is two completely opposite accounts of what is happening in the country and that it is going extreme in opposite ways at the same time. Both views cannot be correct. The country cannot be going more conservative and liberal at the same time.

Interesting that I've heard another opinion on the state of American politics. That everything has shifted to the left (more liberal) and the right is vanishing.

Sounds like you've heard a wrong opinion.

Quote:

Add to this the impression (for California) that the Democratic Party is the problem the state has, but the Repulican Party gets blamed for everything even though they are not, nor have they been in control on the State Government in a very long time

Not going to comment on the state of California, but how does one state = entire country?

What I keep getting is two completely opposite accounts of what is happening in the country and that it is going extreme in opposite ways at the same time. Both views cannot be correct. The country cannot be going more conservative and liberal at the same time.

Kind of.THing become more and more polarized.
It kind of gone both way, but not necesairely at the same moment or on the same point. Depending to who you are talking with, he will probably find a way to complain about the mouvement opposite to him.

Minority's right did increased but law of the type ''stand your ground'' did also pass. Take your pic, you can find material for both view.

What I keep getting is two completely opposite accounts of what is happening in the country and that it is going extreme in opposite ways at the same time. Both views cannot be correct. The country cannot be going more conservative and liberal at the same time.

A simple perusal between the 1980 Republican Party platform -- the eve of the Reagan coalition -- and the current one, reveals a shift rightward in almost all fields of government except for foreign policy, some dramatically. A little amusing point of observation: the 1980 platform made one mention of religion, in terms of equal rights: "no individual should be victimized by unfair discrimination because of race, sex, advanced age, physical handicap, difference of national origin or religion, or economic circumstance." It made no use of the word "sacred." It made one use of the word "God," in the preamble. I'll let you guess how many sacred God-given stuffings there are in 2012.

Of course, this is just the Republican Party. Perhaps the person who believed the country is moving Left is merely expressing *optimism* that, demographically speaking, American voters are gradually moving *forward*. In any case, the 2012 Democratic Party platform is essentially the first to declare such strong, unequivocal support for gay rights, so there.

Its a "train versus platform" problem. The person believing the country is moving "left" is on the train. By almost any measurable criteria, the DNC has moved to center-right on the fiscal front. They remain pro-"individualism" in the social values arena.

The GOP has moved away from "small government" to representing the interests of the mega-corporations and ultra-wealthy. It couples that with the antics of the religious extremists / dominionists / anti-intellectual / whatever who have a very narrow view of "freedoms".

The "small r" Republicans seems supported by the Republican 2012 platform though. That's the weird part. The Platform sound (almost) nothing like one would hear here about the Republican Party.

The Democratic one seems similar in many regards until you get to social and in some cases international areas and defense. Democratic is "Strongest Military force on the planet" style, while Republican is rebuild to the leaves that have been last in cutting back these last few years plus "American Exceptionalism" (it was a section title).

I kind of view it like the US Chamber of Commerce, which I have come to view as one of the most virulently anti-business (*SMALL* business) lobbyists in the country. They *say* they're pro-business but their *actions* are exclusively supportive of extremely large corporations at the expense of the small business and sloping the playing field to make it impossible for small and midsized business to compete.

So the GOP may say they're "Main Street" but their actions have been mostly "Wall Street" ... sadly the DNC has been pulled in that same direction just a few steps to the left but still rightward.

The "small r" Republicans seems supported by the Republican 2012 platform though. That's the weird part. The Platform sound (almost) nothing like one would hear here about the Republican Party.

The difference is in the focus. The vast majority of the 1980 platform is spent denouncing Carter's economic policies and foreign policy failures, advocate controlled government, reduction of (then) high tax levels, and so on. Social policies were barely touched upon except empty nods towards "family." Even abortion received an "it's a difficult issue" address. The current platform amounts to a comprehensive defense of social conservatism as a central issue with extensive points ranging from abortion to defense of marriage and so on. There is no question: God is with the GOP this round and He shall not cede ground to the liberals.

In terms of economic policies, the shift had not been too dramatic in platform, notably because 1980 was the beginning of the "Reaganomics" idea that the Republican Party has been using since (Laffer curve and all that). However, you are probably much more aware of this than I am (having lived through it), but despite everything "Reaganomics" and the promise of small government was regularly compromised by pragmatic concerns and the Reagan Administration's aggressive military expansion. The current Republican Party in Congress has instead launched what amounted to a total war on any Democratic economic measure, which has already cost the nation its credit rating. As recently as last week a "veterans' job bill" failed to pass the Senate at 58 for - 40 against, because of Republican obstruction.

Of course, this is not the first time such a thing happened. There's the "shutdown" around 1994 led by Newt Gingrich, for example.

More importantly, note the dramatic difference in the perception of social programs. While the 1980 platform called for a reining in, it did not dispute the then-predominant view that welfare was fundamentally good and even necessary, whereas the new platform uses the term "entitlements" repeatedly as an attack.

Foreign policy is probably where the United States' establishment parties are most similar, in that they all consider the defense of US interests supreme. There is a great continuity among the various administrations over the decades since the Second World War, despite the sometimes heated rhetoric of differences. There are differences, but they are subtler and in wedge issues (Israel, the Middle East, China) and in, well, personality. Platforms are mostly useless when Presidents regularly have to react to events that originate outside the US borders, as is happening now in the Middle East. In this respect, the potential election of Mitt Romney promises at least a short term cooling of many relationships with the exception of Israel, partly because of his own gaffes, partly through no fault of his own in that the world at large absolutely, totally, utterly, hated our previous President and the party behind him, and unlike the American people they still kinda remember that. I myself remember 2008 quite well, when things basically went, "welcome back to the world community, America," with a surprising amount of celebrations worldwide for Obama's victory and a sharp decline in anti-American sentiments in places like Europe. They even gave President Obama that Nobel Peace Prize as a thank you for not being Bush.

It turned out he's still an American President, of course, and places US interest over any other, more idealistic universalist goals, but at least he is, you know, not Bush.

So the GOP may say they're "Main Street" but their actions have been mostly "Wall Street" ... sadly the DNC has been pulled in that same direction just a few steps to the left but still rightward.

Isn't part of the republican agenda to go so far right that the left goes rightward, too? I'm really worried about the agenda from the right. I've seen people talk about other agendas. There is the "gay agenda", which is laughable (oh yeah, they aren't fighting for rights, they just want to make homosexuality spread, yup, uh-huh ), and then I see people complain about "the liberal agenda" being something so bad and I dunno about that, I haven't perceived anything grave and terrible from it, but I do see the agenda from the right as being very bad. War mongering, catering to the rich and throwing the middle class and lower class under the bus, catering to corporations and big businesses...I could go on.

One thing the US rightwing excels at is DOING what they accuse their opponents of doing, even though the opponents aren't actually doing it. They also take utter extremes of their opponents faction and paint that as the entire movement. And yes, I'm saying that is fairly unique to the right wing. Its a basic derivative of their "purity test" isolator where if you aren't utterly in lockstep, you're a "RINO".
So, yes, there are a few "gay extremists" and a few "feminazis" - which has nothing to do with what the vast majority want - equal pay for equal work and the same rights for gay couples as for straight couples. On the other hand, social conservatism cuts across a fairly wide swath of the right wing and, by its very nature, is intolerant of diversity.